Degroot’s discussion offers a more nuanced look at the history of the Little Ice Age - focusing not just on the harmful effects of global cooling such as famine, social unrest, and epidemics, but also on the ways in which certain societies adapted or even prospered during this time period. In particular, he mentions early societies such as Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate and the Dutch Republic - both societies that fared extremely well during the Grindelwald Fluctuation and Maunder Minimum. Degroot discusses how the Tokugawa warlords implemented policies that placated social unrest and made the country more resilient to climate change. This included creating a dense road network that encouraged commerce. Similarly, the Dutch Republic relied more on commerce and industry than they did agriculture, which also made them less vulnerable to changing environmental conditions. If Earth System Models were available prior to the Little Ice Age period, it is unlikely that they would have been able to predict how societies like Japan and the Dutch Republic would have responded and adapted to changing climatic conditions. This emphasizes the importance of Tapiador and Navarro’s argument about coupling human and physical dynamics when developing predictive climate models. In their essay, they call for the addition of several human parameterizations to existing Earth System Models, including demographics, industry, culture, etc. The examples that Degroot gives of societies who thrived during periods of adverse climate conditions prove the need for the inclusion of human dynamics in Earth System Models. Omitting the human element prevents us from fully understanding how societies will fare in the face of climate change. This is similarly reflected in Behringer’s recount of the history of the Little Ice Age period. He talks about the shift away from religious fanaticism to an age of scientific discovery and “enlightenment” that coincided with increased political progress and stability. He writes, “It seemed evident to some people at the time that holy wars and witch hunts improved neither the weather nor the harvest but merely caused additional suffering” (149). This demonstrates the complexity of human responses to climate change and also their ability to reflect and improve. The “scientific revolution” - while possibly exaggerated in its scope and significance - proves that climate change does not stifle innovation or societal growth. Both Behringer and Degroot’s historical recounts of the Little Ice Age demonstrate the need for Tapiador and Navarro’s argument of coupling human-physical dynamics as well as Mauelshagen’s proposal for a sociosphere. Clearly, societies during the Little Ice Age were not helpless victims who passively endured the changing climatic conditions. In order to better prepare for the future of global warming, a more holistic approach to climate modeling that incorporates the “sociosphere” is necessary to give a more accurate indication of how humans will respond and adapt. Furthermore, the Little Ice Age serves as a tool for communicating climate history because it provides a historical precedent for how societies respond to climate variability. It is a period that demonstrates both the extreme harm that can be imposed by climate change but also the forms of resilience and adaptation that exist and emerge in response. The history of the Little Ice Age offers a historical perspective that underscores that while climate change poses serious threats, human ingenuity and policy decisions can shape outcomes.